Newberg School Board History

(I am writing this as a private citizen to share my perspective and thoughts around the Newberg School Board over the last several years. These are my personal thoughts, not in any way an aspect of my job.)

With the exception of one meeting during a vacation, I have attended every single minute of every single Newberg School Board (NSB) meeting since September of 2017. For four and a half years, no one else has attended that much, not even the current Board members. These meetings are open to the public and are public record, so writing about what has happened is information that could have been available to anyone if they had been present.

Social media and campaign slogans have created a game of “telephone tag,” making many of the talking points completely different from what has actually happened. I’d like to document the history of Board actions so that people can be informed.

Simple Summary:

While Chair Brown and Vice Chair Shannon have talked about returning schools back to academics and away from politics and indoctrination, they have not presented any plan or even one single action to make that happen, besides a flag ban. Their actions have actually hurt academic progress and curriculum development because of the firing of Superintendent Dr. Joe Morelock and the loss of Assistant Superintendent Dr. Derek Brown.

Chair Brown and Vice Chair Shannon have knowingly broken Public Meeting laws multiple times and have hidden action items from the public. Public transparency has been destroyed.

Over and over, Chair Brown and Vice Chair Shannon’s actions have not matched their words. The recalls are not about politics, but about ineffective leadership, illegal and unethical behavior, and damaging actions done in secret.

Detailed Explanation and History:

Anti-racist resolution

A starting point for the current situation is the approval of an Anti-Racist resolution by the NSB on June 23, 2020. Director Dave Brown voted against the resolution, and despite previously stating many times that open dialogue was essential for our Board, he did not provide a reason for his vote. Despite repeated requests from constituents and fellow Board members by email, it took two weeks for him to give his reasons at the Board meeting on July 9, 2020. He released the statement to the Newberg Graphic on July 10, 2020. 

The reasons given in his written statement for why he voted “no” do not match up with the text of the actual resolution. The resolution he voted against does not mention “Black lives matter” at all (not to refer to the organization, and not to refer to the personal value of Black human beings), yet Director Brown’s statement focuses on why he is against the Black Lives Matter organization. The resolution “condemns racism, racial violence, white supremacy, hate speech, and bigotry in all forms”, all things that Director Brown states he supports in his statement, yet he voted no on the resolution. His actions do not match his words.

Black Lives Matter signs in schools

Because of Director Brown’s statement targeting the BLM organization, others in the community took up that concern. In April of 2021, a month before the school board election, there was an outcry about “Black Lives Matter” posters at Dundee Elementary School. Principal Langdon explained that the signs were not about supporting the organization or politics, but about the need to care for Black students. He even clearly stated it was not to care for them more than other students, but simply that they were the ones now in need of attention.

Perhaps you imagine the Black Lives Matter flag was the concern:

But here is the actual poster that brought the complaints. It is a poster that clearly focuses not on any political movement or organization, but on the welfare of our Black students:

Flag ban

After the election, at the very first meeting with the new Board members (July 13, 2021), Vice Chair Brian Shannon made a motion to direct the superintendent to remove two very specific things from schools: Black Lives Matter flags and Pride flags (starting at 34:45 in the video). This motion was tabled, and the directive was not approved until August 10, 2021. At both of those meetings, there was also discussion about rescinding the 2020 anti-racism resolution, as well as re-writing policy ACB “All Students Belong.” This policy is required by Oregon law, and prohibits hate symbols in schools like the swastika and the Confederate Flag. 

Legal advice given to the Board made it clear: the narrow and specific flag ban was illegal and unconstitutional. So four members of the Board hired another lawyer to create Policy GBG, a much broader policy aimed to keep “political, quasi-political, or controversial topics” out of the schools. This was passed on September 28, 2021. 

The policy is so broad that former Superintendent Dr. Joe Morelock said that while the policy itself is technically legal, lawyers had advised him that the enforcement of the policy is virtually impossible to do consistently. Since “quasi-political” was not defined, and since “controversial” can mean anything two students might disagree upon, any enforcement invites lawsuits about discrimination in enforcement. Those suits have, in fact, already happened since the policy passed in September.

Director Shannon stated in the September 28, 2021 Board meeting that “this policy is so innocuous” (starting at 21:30 in the video) and was designed to keep all politics, from whatever perspective, out of schools. But all who heard him speak in the July 13 and August 10 meetings know it started as a very specific ban on Black Lives Matter and Pride flags. His words do not match his actions.

Political vs. support of people

For a year and a half since July of 2020, the Board has heard student after student and parent after parent give testimony for why support for marginalized students (black and other people of color, as well as LGBTQ people) is so needed. Since July 13, 2021 when the ban on BLM and Pride flags was first mentioned, every student who has spoken to the Board, and many of the other speakers, stated how this was about support of people, and not about politics or political organizations. 

Director Shannon and Director Brown continue to not listen to that feedback and return to criticisms of the political leanings of the BLM organization.

Illegal hiring of attorney

Oregon’s public meeting laws are very clear and very strict. Up until last summer, the Newberg School Board took those laws very seriously, not discussing business outside of public board meetings, and publishing detailed Board packets ahead of time to show the public what was going to be discussed and acted upon before the board meeting occurred.

Starting with Director Shannon’s flag ban motion on July 13, 2021, and continuing at multiple meetings since (including the firing of Superintendent Morelock on November 9, 2021), the current Board has often added new action items to the agenda at the meeting. Several times, necessary materials were not even provided to all Board members ahead of time, let alone to the public. One Board member with a disability has frequently had her requests for written material ahead of time ignored, a violation of the American Disabilities Act.

In addition, there are laws about what can happen in an Executive Session of a public Board. The law explicitly states that “No executive session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision,” because all actions are supposed to take place in a meeting the public can observe.

On August 10, 2021, in an Executive Session that was publicly stated to be about Real Estate transactions, the Board voted 4-3 to hire the attorney who then created policy GBG. The Board was told beforehand by Superintendent Morelock that taking ANY action in an executive session where the public cannot observe was illegal. No member of the public, only Board members, had access to the Zoom video session where this vote and final decision occurred. In addition, all four members who voted yes appeared to have discussed the hiring of the attorney before August 10, outside of any public meeting.

All of these actions were illegal and unethical actions, done while Chair Brown and Vice Chair Shannon knew they were illegal. As chair and vice chair of the Board, they have the ability to plan what items are on the agenda, publish the information ahead of time, and then can vote how they wish. Either because of a desire to hide their intentions, or out of an inability to plan ahead, they consistently choose to break the law.

A focus on education, not indoctrination

Some in our community are concerned about academic performance in Newberg schools, and believe politics must be removed from schools to return to a focus on academics. Chair Brown and Vice Chair Shannon have stated in meetings that this policy to get politics out of classrooms will improve the focus on academics.

They have not offered one single other idea or proposal for improving academics. The local outcry and the national media attention on this one policy has made focus on academics more difficult, not easier.

Over the last four and a half years on the Board, I have heard multiple presentations on academics in our schools. Overall, our graduation rate has slowly improved each year, from 84% to 85% (pp. 33-40). Achievement scores show a lot of room for improvement on state testing. COVID has removed much of state testing for the last two years, but in previous years when there were comparisons to other districts in our state, Newberg achievement scores were about in the middle with comparable districts in our area. 

Among many details in those many presentations, one that stands out is this: white students in Newberg perform as well as white students in other districts. Digging deeper into the data, a consistent pattern emerges: students in poverty, students of color, English learners, and students in special education are lagging behind. The best way to improve our overall achievement scores as a district is to focus our resources on removing the barriers for those students (pp. 27-33). In addition, identifying and removing those barriers helps ALL our students improve. All of this has led to programs like RTI (Response to Intervention), which uses regular checking of data for all students, and then uses targeted, research-based interventions to address the struggling areas. 

Reports to the Board stated that doing this work brought up barriers like hunger, so the nutrition department has worked hard to feed breakfast and lunch for free to as many students as possible. It brought up barriers like cultural bias, which have been addressed with professional development. It brought up barriers like bullying and racist actions, which have been addressed with new, consistent discipline procedures and expressions of support for marginalized students.

Multiple times, Chair Brown has questioned providing free meals in public Board meetings. Vice Chair Shannon has stated he wants “equity of opportunity, not equity of outcome,” while ignoring the presentations that show the district’s focus is on removing barriers so that all students do have equity of opportunity, so that all groups of students show the same range of outcomes as each other. The district doesn’t expect each individual student to have the same outcomes; they expect that all the groups should show the same range of outcomes, no matter what racial group or income level group is examined. Currently, the various groups do not show the same range of outcomes; equity work aims to improve that.

Curriculum

Over the last two and a half years, the Board has heard multiple reports on the process of adopting curriculum in math, literature, and science (p. 25). These core areas have needed extensive work, bringing teachers together to plan how and at what grade each core standard is addressed, and then to choose and purchase curriculum that can help every student meet those standards. This work was neglected for many years, until Superintendent Morelock championed the need for funding curriculum, and Assistant Superintendent Dr. Derek Brown led the process to bring teachers together for standards work, and then for the curriculum adoption. This work happened in several content areas over the last several years.

The Board heard several reports about how this curriculum work was bringing excellent feedback from teachers; this has been substantial work to improve the academics in Newberg schools. 

Since then, the Board’s actions have led to both Superintendent Morelock and Assistant Superintendent Brown leaving the district, actions which set the district back from the actual focus on curriculum and academics.

Transparency and Public input

Chair Brown has stated that he wants to have discussions and hear from constituents. He has also repeatedly said: “For every person in our community who feels one way there is another who feels the opposite.” Since July, hundreds of people have asked to make public comment at a Board meeting, but have not been chosen. The people chosen to give comment appear to be almost evenly split; however, people who have spoken in favor of Chair Brown’s position have spoken at multiple meetings, while others who disagree have never been given the chance.

At the December 7, 2021 meeting, two superintendent search firms made presentations to the Board. One presented a “compressed timeline” which would have hired a permanent superintendent by mid-January, screening and interviews done only by a small group of Board members, and would have kept the names of any applicants a secret until presented to the Board to be approved (start at 46:13 of the video). 

At the December 14, 2021 meeting, Chair Brown stated that the process of a search for the superintendent would be transparent, would not be completed until at least February, and that the public would get to meet all the finalists for the position before any approval by the Board (starting at 2:23:30 of the video). However, in the very meeting where he said that, he voted to approve a specific amendment that adopted the “compressed timeline,” (starting at 2:24:14 of the video) which went against all the things he stated. His actions were in direct contradiction to his words about a transparent process. 

Final thoughts:

For those who agree with Chair Brown and Vice Chair Shannon that schools should be focused on academics, I hope reviewing the actions that have occurred shows that they have not presented any concrete plans for doing so. In fact, they have taken actions that slow the academic and curriculum progress the district has been making, and not shown the leadership skills to plan for academic progress.

For those who have heard and approve of Chair Brown and Vice Chair Shannon’s words, I hope reviewing the ways their actions have gone directly against their words raises concerns about their ability to lead effectively.

For those who think the recalls are about political disagreements, I hope reviewing the clear legal and ethical violations Chair Brown and Vice Chair Shannon have knowingly and repeatedly committed offers a clearer picture for why they need to be held accountable through the recall process.

UPDATE:

I have only had three substantive pushbacks in regard to this article. I’ll answer each of them.

“This may not have been handled well, but it shouldn’t be a recall. There could be a compromise about the flags. Why wasn’t that done instead of a recall?”

Director Piros made motions at the August 10, 2021 Meeting (start at 2:46:30 in the video), and at the September 14, 2021 Meeting (start at 2:48:50 in the video), each time carefully asking for a committee to be formed that could find a compromise and work this out. Both times it was voted down.

“You’re saying illegal activity, and that’s irresponsible. No court of law has determined that.”

In the post above, I linked to Oregon State Law that says no final action can be taken in Executive Session. The Board hired an attorney with a vote in an executive session on August 11, 2021. That is illegal.

If I see someone rob a bank, I can say they did something illegal even if they aren’t convicted yet. 

In addition, the Oregon Attorney General makes decisions about what the punishment or remedy is for each statute that is broken. For public meeting law, the remedy pursued by the Oregon Attorney General is education. The idea is to change the behavior through education. The Board Chair and Vice Chair have been given that remedial education, and their behavior has not changed. When asked what other recourse there is for breaking public meeting law, the legal advice has been: either a lawsuit, or a recall. There is a current lawsuit pending (that has not yet even had a court date, let alone a ruling) on breaking public meeting law.

“The Board has new leadership. They need time to learn and be educated, not recalled and voted out of office.”

As stated above, they have had that education. I’ve heard it given during training sessions by the OSBA, and I’ve heard specific direction from lawyers about what can’t be done given to the Board. They continue to not change behavior.